Sri A.ramachadra Rao

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS FOR RAILWAYS, GUNTUR.

PRESENT : SRI A.RAMACHANDRA RAO, B.COM., B.L.,

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR RAILWAYS, GUNTUR.

FRIDAY, THIS THE 8TH DAY OF MAY, 2015.

C.C.255 of 2013

Between:- State Rep. by the Sub-Inspector, R.P.F., Guntur. … Complainant.

And

A1) Chitram Siva Kumar S/o Shiva, 26 years, R/o Nagaraju Colony, Guntur. A2) Vemvarapu Ramesh S/o Bhagya Raj, 21 years, R/o Bongaralabeedu, 5 th ane, Guntur.

...Accused

This case coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of

Sri P.Chinna Rao, Advocate for A1 & A2 and the matter having been stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered following ::

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector, RPF, Guntur, filed complaint against

A.1 and A.2 for the offence Under Section 3 (a) RP (UP) Act in

Cr.No.07/2013 of RPF Post, Guntur alleging as follows :

On 17/06/2013 at about 11.00 hrs., while PW.2

D.Srimannarayana, Sub-Inspector of RPF, Guntur, along with his staff was making confidential watch at KM No.2/15 between

Reddipalem and Kakani Railway stations, they noticed A.1 and A.2 carrying one plastic bag each in suspicious circumstances. On suspicion immediately they detained A.1 and A.2. Later he secured two mediators namely LW.4 Yesudas and LW.5.M.Ravindra

Reddy and in their presence, when enquired, A.1 and A.2 revealed their identities and confessed that both of them came to Railway

2

track, found Railway iron material, picked up the same and placed the same in their respective plastic bags and while both of them were going, they were caught hold off by them. On verification of the said plastic bags in the possession of A.1 and A.2 in the presence of the said mediators, they noticed MO.1 sixteen Railway pendrol clips in the plastic bag carried by A.1 and MO.2 fourteen

Railway pendrol in the possession of A.2. Then he arrested A.1 and A.2 after explaining the grounds of arrest and seized the said

Railway material from their possession in the presence of the said mediators under cover of Ex.P.1 mediators report. He also examined A.1 and A.2 and recorded their detailed statements under Ex.P.2 and P.3 respectively. Later he brought A.1 and A.2 along with the said case property to RPF post, Guntur. He registered a case in Crime No.07/2013, U/sec.3 (a) of RP (UP) Act of RPF Post, Guntur. On 17/06/2013 he got produced A.1 and A.2 along with the case property before the court for Judicial remand.

On 24/06/2013 he received Ex.P.4 theft report from PW.3 CH.V

Suresh Kumar, Senior Section Engineer, P.way, New-Guntur about the theft of MO.1 and 2 at KM No.2/15 between Reddipalem and

Kakani Railway stations. On 25/06/2013 he called PW.3 to RPF post, Guntur and produced MO.1 and MO.2 in MO.3 plastic bags for examination and certification. Accordingly, PW.3 examined

MO.1 and 2 and issued Ex.P.5 certificate to the effect that MO.1 and MO.2 belonged to Indian Railways and they are not available in open market and not liable for auction and that they are in serviceable condition and used in track maintenance by the

Engineering Department. On 29/06/2013 he examined the mediators i.e., LW.4 Yesudasu and LW.5 Ravindra Reddy and recorded their statements under Ex.P.6 and P.7 respectively. Later on his transfer by promotion, he handed over the file for further enquiry to his successor i.e., PW.1 M.Edukondalu, Sub-Inspector,

3

RPF, Guntur. PW.1 verified the enquiries made by PW.2 and filed complaint as they are on the correct lines. Hence the complaint.

3.This case was taken cognizance of the offence Under

Section 3(a) of RP (UP) Act against A.1 and A.2. On appearance of

A.1 and A.2, copies of all documents were furnished to them. A.1 and A.2 were examined Under Section 246 of Cr.P.C. for the alleged offence after dispensing with the enquiry under Sec.244 of

Cr.P.C., on the memo filed by the learned public prosecutor as the record available discloses that there is a prima facie case against them for the alleged offence. A.1 and A.2 pleaded not guilty of the offence. After hearing both sides, charge Under Section 3(a) of

RP (UP) Act 1966 was framed against A.1 and A.2, read over and explained the same to them in Telugu. A.1 and A.2 pleaded not guilty of the said charge and claimed to be tried.

4.In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined

P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P.7 and M.Os. 1 to 3. LW.2

G.Srinivasa Rao and LW.3 M.Venkateswarlu were given up by the learned Public prosecutor. LW.4 P.Yesudasu and LW.5 M.Ravindra

Reddy were given up by the learned Public prosecutor by filing a petition under section 294 Cr.P.C.

5.After closure of the prosecution evidence, A.1 and A.2 were examined Under Section 313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

They denied the same and reported no defence witnesses.

6.Heard the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor for Railway Protection Force and also the learned counsel for A.1 and A.2.

4

7.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved its case against A.1 and A.2 for the charges

Under Section 3(a) of RP (UP) Act beyond reasonable doubt?

8. Point: It is the case of the prosecution that on 17.06.2013 at about 11.00 hours at the scrap shop situate at KM No.2/15 between Reddipalem and Kakani Railway stations, A.1 and A.2 were found in unlawful possession of the Railway Property i.e.,

Thirty pendrol clips belonging to Indian Railways without any bill or voucher issued by the Railway authorities and thereby committed an offence punishable Under Section 3 (a) of RP (UP)

Act. The case of A.1 and A.2 is total denial of the case of the prosecution.

9. As already stated above, in order to bring home the guilt of A.1 and A.2 for the charge framed against them, the prosecution has examined P.Ws. 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to

P.7 and M.Os.1 to 3. P.W.2 is the investigating officer. PW.3 is

Senior Section Engineer, P.Way, New Guntur, who gave Ex.P.4 theft report to P.W.1 regarding missing of M.Os.1 and 2 and later issued

Ex.P.5 certificate after examining M.Os.1 & 2 to the effect that they belonged to Indian Railways and they were in serviceable condition, not available in open market and not liable for auction.

PW.1 is the then Sub-Inspector, RPF, Guntur who verified the enquiries made by PW.2 and filed complaint against A.1 and A.2.

10. As seen from the language employed in section 3(a)

Railway Property (Unlawful possession) Act 1966, the prosecution has to prove that the property in question should be railway property; it should be reasonably suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained and it should be found or proved that A.1 and A.2 were or had been in possession of that property.

11. The evidence of PW.2, the investigating officer is as follows:

5

On 17/06/2013 at about 11.00 hrs., while he along with his staff was making confidential watch at KM No.2/15 between

Reddipalem and Kakani Railway stations, they noticed A.1 and A.2 carrying one plastic bag each in suspicious circumstances. On suspicion immediately they detained A.1 and A.2. Later he secured two mediators namely LW.4 Yesudas and LW.5.M.Ravindra

Reddy and in their presence, when enquired, A.1 and A.2 revealed their identities and confessed that both of them came to Railway track, found Railway iron material, picked up the same and placed the same in their respective plastic bags and while both of them were going, they were caught hold off by them. On verification of the said plastic bags in the possession of A.1 and A.2 in the presence of the said mediators, they noticed MO.1 sixteen Railway pendrol clips in the plastic bag carried by A.1 and MO.2 fourteen

Railway pendrol in the possession of A.2. Then he arrested A.1 and A.2 after explaining the grounds of arrest and seized the said

Railway material from their possession in the presence of the said mediators under cover of Ex.P.1 mediators report. He also examined A.1 and A.2 and recorded their detailed statements under Ex.P.2 and P.3 respectively. Later he brought A.1 and A.2 along with the said case property to RPF post, Guntur. He registered a case in Crime No.07/2013, U/sec.3 (a) of RP (UP) Act of RPF Post, Guntur. On 17/06/2013 he got produced A.1 and A.2 along with the case property before the court for Judicial remand.

On 24/06/2013 he received Ex.P.4 theft report from PW.3 CH.V

Suresh Kumar, Senior Section Engineer, P.way, New-Guntur about the theft of MO.1 and 2 at KM No.2/15 between Reddipalem and

Kakani Railway stations. On 25/06/2013 he called PW.3 to RPF post, Guntur and produced MO.1 and MO.2 in MO.3 plastic bags for examination and certification. Accordingly, PW.3 examined

MO.1 and 2 and issued Ex.P.5 certificate to the effect that MO.1 and MO.2 belonged to Indian Railways and they are not available

6

in open market and not liable for auction and that they are in serviceable condition and used in track maintenance by the

Engineering Department. On 29/06/2013 he examined the mediators i.e., LW.4 Yesudasu and LW.5 Ravindra Reddy and recorded their statements under Ex.P.6 and P.7 respectively. Later on his transfer by promotion, he handed over the file for further enquiry to his successor i.e., PW.1 M.Edukondalu, Sub-Inspector,

RPF, Guntur. PW.1 verified the enquiries made by him and filed complaint as they are on the correct lines. P.W.3 corroborated the above evidence of P.W.2 in respect of his part.

12.Nothing is elicited from the cross examination of P.Ws.1 to 3 to discredit their testimony. It is simply suggested to PW.2 that this case has been foisted against A.1 and A.2 for statistical purpose by planting MOs.1 & 2 and preparing the entire record in

RPF office, Guntur and that nothing was seized from the possession of A.1 and A.2. P.W.2 denied the suggestions given to them. No enmity is suggested to PW.2 to disbelieve his evidence.

In this case the mediators are not examined as the learned defence counsel gave consent. Therefore, the learned public prosecutor has given up the mediators in this case by filing a petition under section 294 Cr.P.C.

13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Balakishan A.Devidayal Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 1980 CRL.L.J.1424, it was held as follows: In the light of the above discussion, it is clear that an officer of the RPF conducting an enquiry under Section 8(1) of the 1966 Act has not been invested with all the powers of an officer-in-charge of a police station making an investigation under Chapter XIV of the code.

Particularly, he has no power to initiate prosecution by filing a charge sheet before the Magistrate concerned under Section 173 of the code, which has been held to be the clinching attribute of an investigating ‘police officer’.

7

Thus, judged by the test laid down in Badku Jyoti Savant’s case, which has been consistently adopted in the subsequent decisions noticed above. Inspector Kakade of the RPF could not be deemed to be a ‘police officer’ within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and therefore, any confessional or incriminating statement recorded by him in the course of an inquiry under Section 8(1) of the 1966 Act, cannot be excluded from evidence under the said section.”

14.In the light of the above decision, the confessional statements of A.1 and A.2 marked as Exs.P.2 and P.3 respectively are admissible in evidence. The confessional statements of A.1 and A.2 coupled with Ex.P.1 Panchanama clearly established the fact that M.Os.1 and 2 in MO.3 bags have been recovered from the possession of A.1 and A.2. So an inference can be drawn that the statements of A.1 and A.2 are made voluntarily.

In a case between State of UP and Bans Raj Singh reported in 1974 CrI. L.J.1240 (V 80 C 396) it was held as follows:

“The burden of proof on the accused in such a case can be discharged by him only by positive proof and not by merely offering a reasonable or probable explanation.” where the accused did not even offer any explanation for his possession it was held that the he was guilty under section 3.

Similarly, in a case between the Public Prosecutor and Shaik Galib & others reported in 1975 CRI. L.J.952 , it was held as follows:

“So far as A.2 is concerned, the evidence on record established that the property, which was recovered from the lorry hired by him, is the railway property and in the absence of his explanation as to how he came into possession, it must be held that he came into possession of the property by unlawful means.”

8

15.As per Section 114 (a) of Indian Evidence Act, a man who is in the possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession. But there was no explanation rendered by accused for such possession.

16.The evidence on record inspires the confidence of the

Court to believe the same. Basing on the evidence on record, in the light of the above decisions, it can be safely concluded that A1 and A.2 have committed the offence under section 3 (a) of Railway

Property (Unlawful Possession) Act. Therefore, I hold that the complainant has proved its case against A.1 and A.2 for the charge U/sec.3 (a) of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly the point is answered.

17.In the result, A1 and A.2 are found guilty of the offence

Under Section 3 (a) of Railway Property (Unlawful possession) Act and convicted Under Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 08th day of May,

2015.

Judicial Magistrate of First

Class for Railways, Guntur.

18. When A.1 and A.2 are heard on the question of sentence to be imposed on them, they pleaded mercy. A.1 submits that he has wife, two sons and old parents and they depend upon him. He further submits that except him there are no other persons to look after his family members and that he has not committed any offence and he was not involved in any cases previously. A2 submits that he is bachelor and he has old mother and she depend upon him. He further submits that except him there are no other person to look after his mother and that he has not committed any offence and he was not involved in any cases previously. A.1 and

9

A.2, therefore, pray to take a lenient view in sentencing them and fine may be imposed.

The learned counsel for A.1 and A.2 also submitted that A.1 and A.2 were not involved in a case of this nature previously and therefore, a lenient view may be taken in sentencing them. The learned Public Prosecutor of Railway

Protection Force has submitted that A.1 and A.2 are not involved in any other offence and this is the first offence committed by them.

19.The offence Under Section 3(a) of RP (UP) Act, 1966 is punishable for first offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both and in the absence of special and adequate reasons to be mentioned in the judgment of the Court, such imprisonment shall not be less than one year and such fine shall not be less than One Thousand rupees.

20. The learned Counsel for A.1 and A.2 has submitted that

A.1 and A.2 are not involved in any other cases and that they are not convicted by any other court previously. As the offence committed by A.1 and A.2 in respect of the Railway property, I feel that it is not a fit case to invoke the provisions of Probation of

Offenders Act.

21.Considering the submissions of A.1 and A.2 and their counsel and also the learned Public Prosecutor, keeping in view the value of the property involved in this case I am inclined to take a lenient view in sentencing A.1 and A.2.

22.Accordingly, A.1 & A.2 are sentenced to pay a fine of

Rs.1,500/- (Rupees one Thousand and five hundred only) each in default Simple Imprisonment for period of one month each for the offence U/Sec.3 (a) of RP (UP) Act.

The property covered by C.P.R.No.55/2014 i.e., M.Os.1 to 3, which were already given to RPF, Guntur for interim custody

10

shall be returned to the concerned Railway Authority under proper acknowledgment and report compliance after appeal time is over. A.1 and A.2 are informed about their right to prefer an appeal against this judgment and they are also informed that if they have no means to engage an advocate to prefer an appeal, they are at liberty to approach District Legal Service Authority,

Guntur for free legal aid.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 08th day of May,

2015.

Judicial Magistrate of First

Class for Railways, Guntur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION :FORDEFENCE: None.

P.W.1/16.07.2014 : M.Edukondalu, SI/RPF/Guntur. P.W.2/03.09.2014 : D.Srimannarayana, the then SI/RPF/Guntur. P.W.3/09.04.2015 : Ch.V.Suresh Kumar, SSE/P.Way/Guntur.

11

EXHIBITS MARKED.

FOR PROSECUTION :FOR DEFENCE : Nil Ex.P.1/17.06.2013: Panchanama. Ex.P.2/17.06.2013: Statement of A.1 recorded by PW.2. Ex.P.3/17.06.2013: Statement of A.2 recorded by PW.2. Ex.P.4/24.06.2013: Theft report given by PW.3. Ex.P.5/25.06.2013 : Property Certificate issued by PW.3. Ex.P.6/29.06.2013 : Statement of LW.4 Yesudasu recorded by PW.2. Ex.P.7/29.06.2013 : Statement of LW.5 Ravindra Reddy recorded by PW.2.

No. of material objects marked:- M.O.1: 16 Railway pendrol clips. M.O.2: 14 Railway pendrol clips M.O.3: 02 plastic bags

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

FOR RAILWAYS, GUNTUR.

12

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR RAILWAYS,

GUNTUR.

C.C.No. 255/2013

Date ofApprehensioReleasedCommencemeClosure FilingResult Offencen of accusedon bailnt of trialof trial 17.06.1325.07.1317.06.1316.08.13 16.07.1406.05.1508.05.15 Between:- State Rep. by the Sub-Inspector, R.P.F., Guntur. … Complainant.

And

A1) Chitram Siva Kumar S/o Shiva, 26 years, R/o Nagaraju Colony, Guntur. A2) Vemvarapu Ramesh S/o Bhagya Raj, 21 years, R/o Bongaralabeedu,

5th ane, Guntur. ...Accused

Nature of Offence :Punishable U/Sec.3 (a) RP (UP) Act

Finding of the court: Found Guilty.

Sentence or Order: In the result, A1 and A.2 are found guilty of the offence Under Section 3 (a) of Railway Property (Unlawful possession) Act and convicted Under Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C., A.1 & A.2 are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees one Thousand and five hundred only) each in default Simple Imprisonment for period of one month each for the offence U/Sec.3

(a) of RP (UP) Act. The property covered by C.P.R.No.55/2014 i.e., M.Os.1 to 3, which were already given to RPF, Guntur for interim custody shall be returned to the concerned Railway Authority under proper acknowledgment and report compliance after appeal time is over. A.1 and A.2 are informed about their right to prefer an appeal against this judgment and they are also informed that if they have no means to engage an advocate to prefer an appeal, they are at liberty to approach District Legal Service Authority, Guntur for free legal aid. Explanation for the delay: No witness is required to attend this Court beyond three times. On 29.07.2013 copies of documents furnished to accused. When A.1 & A.2 were examined under Section 246 Cr.P.C. For the offence U/sec.3 (a) RP (UP) Act, they pleaded guilty for the offence. Trial was commenced on 16.07.2014 and closed on 06/05/2015. On 07.05.2015 accused were examined Under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. Arguments of both sides were heard and on 08.05.2015 and on the same day Judgment was pronounced. The delay is due to non production of witnesses by the prosecution.

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

FOR RAILWAYS, GUNTUR.

The fine amount of Rs.1500­00 has paid by A.1. The fine amount of Rs.1500­00 has paid by A.2.

Copy Submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR

RAILWAYS, GUNTUR.

PRESENT : SRI A.RAMACHANDRA RAO, B.COM., B.L.,

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR RAILWAYS, GUNTUR.

TUESDAY, THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MAY, 2015.

C.C.296 of 2014

Between:- State Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chebrole Police Station.

...Complainant

And

1.Nemalikanti Suresh S/o Bodeiah, 20 years,Mala, Sekurupalem Village.(Died) 2.Nemalikanti Bodeiah S/o Venkaiah, 45 years,Mala, Sekurupalem Village. 3.Nemalikanti Venkateswarulu S/o Venkaiah, 35 years,Mala, Sekurupalem Village.

Case against A.1 was abated on 14.12.2012 since he died. … Accused

This case coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri Yarlagadda Ravi, Advocate for A2 and Sri.M.Babavau & B.Chandra, Advocates for A3 and the matter having been stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following ::

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Chebrole Police Station, filed charge sheet against A1 to A3 for the offence under Section 324 r/w 34 of

IPC in Crime No.75/2011 of Chebrole Police Station alleging as follows:

P.W.1 Nemalikanti Balakotaiah and the accused are inter- related to each other. P.W.1 is an elder in the Sekurupalem village. P.W.5

Kasimala Bhushamma is a widow residing with her children in the same village. The wife of A2 Basavapunnamma used to pick up quarrels with her sister-in-law i.e., P.W.5. While the matter stood thus, on the night of 15-05- 2011 when P.W.5 and the said Basaapunnamma were found quarreling with

2

each other on the road, P.W.1 intervened and separated them for which the said Basavapunnamma and A1 found fault with P.W.1 and developed grouse against him. On the midnight of 16-05-2011 while P.W.1 was sleeping on a cot in the front yard, A1 to A3 attacked him with a knife causing injury on his left ear. P.W.1 kept silent thinking that a quarrel would take place. On 17-05- 2011 morning at about 6-30 A.M., P.W.1, P.W.2 Nemalikanti Venu, P.W.3

Namalikanti Ramaiah, P.W.4 Nemalikanti Mariayadau and P.W.5 noticed bleeding underneath the cot on which P.W.1 was sleeping and then P.W.1 informed them about the said attack made by A1 to A3 on him. On that P.W.1 was shifted to District Hospital, Tenali for treatment.

On receipt of hospital intimation, PW.7 Shaik Ismail, Head

Constable of III Town Police Station. Tenali, rushed to the Hospital, recorded the statement of the injured P.W.1 under Ex.P.1 on 18-05-2011 at 6-30 A.M and forwarded the same to the Station House Officer, Chebrolu Police station on the point of jurisdiction. On receipt of the same, PW.8

G.C.Rambabu, Sub-Inspector of Police of Chebrolu Police Station, registered the same as a case in Crime No.75/2011 Under Section 324 r/w.34 IPC of Chebrole Police Station vide Ex.P.6 FIR on 19-05-2011 at 6

P.M. and submitted the original FIR to the Court and copies to the concerned. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, prepared Ex.P7 rough sketch, examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and recorded their detailed statements. P.W.9 I.Venkateswara Reddy, Sub Inspector of

Police, Chebrolu Police Station took up further investigation. On 03-06-2011 at 2-30 P.M., he arrested A1 and A2 and sent them to the court for remand.

On 09-06-2011 at 9-30 A.M., he arrested A3 and sent him to the court for remand. P.W.6, Dr. K.Edukondalu, who treated P.W.1, issued Ex.P.4 wound certificate opining that the injury No.3 is grievous in nature and other injuries sustained by him are simple in nature. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed against A1 to A3. Thus, A1 to A3 are liable for punishment under the above section of law.

3

02.This case was taken cognizance of the offence Under

Section 324 r/w.34 of I.P.C. against A1 to A3. On appearance of A1 to A3, copies of all documents as required Under Section 207 Cr.P.C. were furnished to them. Later A.1 died and case against A.1 was abated on 14.12.2012 on the death certificate filed by the prosecution. When examined

Under Section 239 Cr.P.C. for the alleged offence, A2 and A3 pleaded not guilty of the offence. After hearing both sides, charges under sections 324 and 326 IPC have been framed against A2 and A3, read over and explained the same to them in Telugu. A2 and A3 pleaded not guilty of the said charges and claimed to be tried.

03. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.7.

04.After closure of the prosecution evidence, A2 to A3 were examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. A2 to A3 denied the same and reported no defence witnesses.

05.Heard the arguments of both sides.

06. Now the point for determination is ....

“Whether the prosecution has proved its case against accused

for the charges Under Sections 324 and 326 IPC against A.2 and A3

beyond reasonable doubt ?”

7. P O I N T :

i)It is the case of the prosecution that on 16.05.2011 mid night in Sekurupalem village while PW.1 was sleeping on a cot in front of his house, A.2 and A.3 along with A.1 voluntarily caused hurt and grievous hurt to PW.1 by means of a knife on his left ear and forehead and thereby A.2 and A.3 committed an offence punishable under sections 324 & 326 of IPC.

The case of A.2 & A.3 is total denial of the case of the prosecution.

ii)As already stated above, in order to bring home the guilt of

A2 & A.3 1 for the charges framed against them, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.7. P.W.1 is the injured-

4

defacto complainant. PW.2 to PW.5 are examined to speak about the alleged incident. PW.6 is the Medical Officer who treated PW.1 and issued Ex.P.4 wound certificate opining that the injury No.3 sustained by PW.1 is grievous in nature and the other injuries sustained by him are simple in nature. PW.7 is Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police of out-post police station of District

Hospital, Tenali who received Ex.P.5 medical intimation, examined PW.1 and recorded Ex.P.1 statement of PW.1 on 17.05.2011 at about 09.00 am., and sent the same to Chebrolu Police station on the point of jurisdiction. PW.8 is the Sub-Inspector of police of Chebrolu Police station who registered Exs.P.1 and P.5 as Ex.P.6 FIR, examined PWs.1 and 2 and recorded their detailed statement in District Hospital, Tenali, visited the scene of offence, prepared

Ex.P.7 rough sketch, examined PWs.3 to 5 and recorded their detailed statements. PW.9 is the then Sub Inspector of police of Chebrole Police

Station who arrested A1 & A.2 at the house of A.2 on 03.06.2011 at about 02.30 PM., and later got produced them before the Court for remand. PW.10 is the Sub-Inspector of police of Chebrole police station who filed charge sheet after completion of investigation and on receipt of Ex.P.4 wound certificate of PW.1.

iii) PW.1 stated in his evidence that PW.5, who is a Widow, is residing with her children in the house of her brother and that A.2 and his wife used to quarrel with PW.5 regarding which he reprimanded A.2 and on that A.2 found fault with him and abused him vulgarly. PW.1 also stated in his evidence that keeping the above incident in the mind, about three years back while he was sleeping out side the house on the cot, A.1 to A.3 attacked him with knife on his ear and immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital for treatment and that the villagers who saw A.1 to A.3 running away from the scene hurriedly informed him that A.1 to A.3 attacked him with knife. It is evident from the above evidence of PW.1 that only on being informed by the villagers he came to know that A.1 to A.3 attacked him with knife. In his cross-examination he admitted that he did not state before the police that the

5

villagers told him that they saw A.1 to A.3 hurriedly running away from his house. It is suggested to PW.1 that there are disputes between him and the accused in connection with flow of waste water and that the accused never beat him. PW.1 denied the said suggestion. He admitted that the accused are his relatives and that his house is surrounded by residential houses. He also admitted that his neighbour can hear voice if raised at his house. It is not the evidence of PW.1 that he raised cries when the accused beat him.

iv) PW.2, who is the son of PW.1, stated in his evidence that on 15.05.2011 at 09.30 PM., when he was at Tenali, he received information that the wife of A.2 and PW.5 Bhushamma quarreled with each other and on that PW.1 advised PW.5 not to dispute and pacified them and that A.2 and

A.3 tried assault PW.1. He also stated in his evidence that that on 16.05.2011 at about 08.00 AM, PW.3 informed over phone that A.1 to A.3 beat his father PW.1 causing bleeding injuries and he was shifted to

Government Hospital, Tenali and on that he rushed to the hospital and found his father with injury on his left ear and his father PW.1 informed him that

A.1 to A.3 attacked him with knife. As seen from Ex.P.6 FIR, the alleged incident took place on the midnight of 16.05.2011. As seen from Ex.P.1 statement of PW.1 recorded on 18.05.2011 at 06.00 AM, the alleged incident took place on 16.05.2011 night at 10.00 PM. But the figure '6' was corrected as figure '5'. Whereas, as seen from Ex.P.5 Medical Intimation, it was mentioned that the injured was alleged to have been beaten by unknown person with a stick on 16.05.2011 night time. But according to the above evidence of PW.2, he was informed that A.1 to A.3 beat PW.1 on 16.05.2011 at 08.00 AM. As seen from the cross-examination of PW.2, he admitted that he did not state before the police that PW.3 informed him about the incident and police did not record his statement in his presence. Therefore, it is evident that PW.2 is speaking falsehood.

v) P.Ws.3 and 4 did not support the case of the prosecution and they turned hostile. PW.3 stated in his evidence that he does not know

6

anything about this case and that police never examined him. PW.4 stated in his evidence that on 17.05.2011 PW.2 told him that PW.1 suffered injury to his ear and on that he sent PW.1 to the hospital in Ambulance. He further stated in his evidence that he does not know how PW.1 sustained injury and police did not examine him. PWs.3 and 4 denied the suggestions made by the leaned Assistant Public Prosecutor that they stated before the police as in Exs.P.2 and P.3, their 161 Cr.P.C., statements respectively to the effect that on 17.05.2011 in the morning, when they went to the house of PW.1, they found bleeding injury to the left ear of PW.1 and PW.1 told them that A.1 to A.3 attacked him with a knife in the night. Therefore, the evidence of

Pws.3 and 4 is not at all useful to the case of the prosecution.

vi) Coming to the evidence of PW.5, he stated in his evidence that on 17.05.2011 morning, she came to know that PW.1 suffered bleeding injury and immediately she went to the house of PW.1 and found him with bleeding injury to his ear and PW.1 told that on the previous night some persons attacked him by putting sedation on his nose. The above evidence of PW.5 does not disclose any incriminating material against A.1 to A.3.

vii) From the above evidence of PW.1, it is evident that the villagers witnessed while he was being attacked with a knife. But the said villagers are not cited as witnesses in the memo of evidence. Even PW.1 also did not see them. According to the case of the prosecution, P.Ws.2 to 5 saw PW.1 suffering bleeding injury to his ear. PW.1 and PW.5 did not specify in their evidence to which ear PW.1 sustained injury. Coming to the medical evidence on record, PW.6 stated in his evidence that on 17.05.2011 at about 07.45 am., he examined PW.1 and found two lacerated injuries on left ear and a contusion on forehead. He admitted in his cross-examination that it was mentioned in Ex.P.4 wound certificate that PW.1 is beaten by unknown person. He also admitted that the injuries mentioned in Ex.P.4 may be possible if a person suddenly falls on rough surface or when he comes into contact with a blunt object suddenly. PW.1 is aged about 60 years. As seen

7

from Ex.P.1, PW.1 stated that he noticed four persons were going hurriedly after the incident and he can identify two persons out of them. But no identification parade to identify the accused was conducted by the prosecution in this case. PW.7 admitted in his cross-examination that the

date 16 is altered as 15 in third line and the date 17 is altered as 16 in the

9th line of Ex.P.1. He stated in his cross-examination that he received Ex.P.5 intimation on 17.05.2011 and when he went to the hospital, PW.1 stated that he was unable to give statement and therefore he returned back. He admitted that he did not obtain any endorsement from the doctor to that effect. PW.8, the investigating officer, admitted in his cross-examination that he did not enquire whether the inhabitants of the locality were sleeping in out side of their houses on cots during summer. He also admitted that PW.1 did not state in Ex.P.1 that on 16.05.2011 at about 10.00 PM he was sleeping on the cot in front of his house and that A.1 to A.3 woke him up at 01.00 AM. He also admitted that PW.1 did not state in Ex.P.1 that one of the accused beat him on his left ear and that when PW.2 enquired, he stated to him that A.1 to

A.3 beat him and one of them beat on his left ear with knife. Generally, if anybody is attacked with deadly weapons, he would have raised cries or he would have informed about the incident immediately to anybody. But as seen from the evidence of PW.1, it not his evidence that he raised cries when he was attacked and that he informed about the incident immediately to anybody after the alleged incident. Admittedly the blood stained cloths and the weapon of offence said to have been used in the commission of offence were not seized in this case. There is no cogent and convincing evidence on record to connect A.2 and A.3 to the alleged offence. In the absence of cogent and convincing evidence, it is not safe to connect A2 and A3 with the alleged offence. Therefore, in the above facts and circumstances, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against A2 and A.3 for the charges framed against them beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered.

8

8. In the result, A2 and A.3 are found not guilty of the offence Under

Section 324 and 326 of IPC and they are acquitted Under Section 248 (1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A.2 & A.3 shall be in force for a period of six months as per Section 437A of Cr.P.C. Since no property is seized in this case, there is no order with regard to disposal of case property. Case against

A.1 was already abated on 14.12.2012 since he died.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant on laptop,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 5th day of

May, 2015.

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

FOR RAILWAY, GUNTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE. None. P.W.1/23-09-2014: N.Bala Kotaiah,Defacto-Complainant. P.W.2/17.10.2014: N. Venu. P.W.3/17.10.2014: N.Ramaiah. P.W.4/31.10.2014: N.Mariyadas. P.W.5/31.10.2014: K.Bhusamma. P.W.6/10-02-2015: Dr.K.Edukondalu, Civil Asst.Surgeon,District Hospital, Tenali. P.W.7/03.03.2015: Shaik Ismain, ASI of police. P.W.8/23-03-2015: G.C.Baburao,Sub-Inspector of Police. P.W.9/08-04-2015: I.Venkateswarlu, Sub-Inspector of Police. P.W.10/28-04-2015:V.Rangarao, Sub-Inspector of Police.

9

EXHIBITS MARKED.

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE : Nil

Ex.P.1/18-05-2011: Statement of PW.1 recorded by PW.7. Ex.P.2/19-05-2011: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.3. Ex.P.3/19-05-2011: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.4. Ex.P.4/03-09-2011: Wound Certificate of P.W.1. Ex.P.5/17-05-2011: Medical Intimation. Ex.P.6/18-05-2011: Original FIR. Ex.P.7/19-05-2011: Rough sketch.

No. of material objects marked:- N I L

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

FOR RAILWAYS, GUNTUR.

10

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR RAILWAYS,

GUNTUR.

C.C.No. 296/2014

Date ofApprehensioReleasedCommencemClosure FilingResult Offencen of accusedon bailent of trialof trial A.2 16.05.1122.09.11A.2 03.06.1123.09.1428.04.1505.05.15 03.06.11 A.3 ----A.3 09.06.11------ 09.06.11

Between:- State Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Chebrole Police Station. ... Complainant

And

1.Nemalikanti Suresh S/o Bodeiah, 20 years,Mala, Sekurupalem Village.(Died) 2.Nemalikanti Bodeiah S/o Venkaiah, 45 years,Mala, Sekurupalem Village. 3.Nemalikanti Venkateswarulu S/o Venkaiah, 35 years,Mala, Sekurupalem Village.

Case against A.1 was abated on 14.12.2012 since he died. … Accused

Nature of Offence :Punishable U/Sec.324 r/w.34 IPC

Finding of the court: Found not Guilty.

Sentence or Order: In the result, A2 and A.3 are found not guilty of the offence Under Section 324 and 326 of IPC and they are acquitted Under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A.2 & A.3 shall be in force for a period of six months as per Section 437A of Cr.P.C. Since no property is seized in this case, there is no order with regard to disposal of case property. Case against A.1 was already abated on 14.12.2012 since he died.

Explanation for the delay:

On01.03.2012 copies of documents furnished to accused and on 25.07.2013 accused were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. Trial was commenced on 23.09.2014 and closed on 28.04.2015. On 29.04.2015 accused were examined Under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., and on 05.05.2015 heard arguments and on the same day Judgment was pronounced. Hence, there is no avoidable delay.

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

FOR RAILWAYS, GUNTUR.

Copy Submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

ILWAYS, GUNTUR.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL.MAGISTRATt OF IC

LASS FOR RA

Present:- A. RAMACHANDRJ. Wednesday, this the 05tti day of~:;; 2015. RAo, B.COM. B.L., Clas J di M . G~ntur. u . ag,strate of I s for Railw

C.C. No~ 2014

~~

BETWEEN: Puligonda Satyanarayana Guptha, S/o: Late P.S.M. Prasad, Hindu, age 45 years, Business, R/o. D.No. 12-25-94,

Opp. Lane to Dr. M.Gopal Krishna Hospital, .. ... Complainant.

Kothapet, Guntur, Guntur District.

versus

Lella Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Nagabhushanam Hindu, age 45 years, Record Assistant, '

... Accused.

Governmet College for Women, Guntur 522 001.

The complainant having requested permission to withdraw his complaint and having statisfied this court that there are sufficient grounds for granting permission is hereby permitted to withdraw the complaint. The accused is acquitted under Section 257, Code of

Criminal Procedure: are : 02-01-2013.

1. Date of Offence : 07-03-2013.

2. Date of complaint : 06-05-2015.

3. Date of Hearing

~,b/(\1 S:--

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLAfsJ FOR RAILWAYS:: GUNTUR.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL.MAGISTRATE Of: I CLASS FOR RAILWAYS, GUNTUR.

Present:-~- RAMACHANDRA RAo, B.COM., B.L., Judi. Magistrate of I Class for Railways Guntur. Monday, this the 18th day of May, 2015.

C.C. No.207 Q_f 2014

(U/s. 138 of N½t., ..l

BETWEEN: Karnati Nageswara Rao, 5/o. Subba Rao, R/o.Jenda chettu Vedhi, Old Guntur, Guntur.

. .... Complainant.

Versus

Jampani Nageswara Rao, S/o. Amramu, th Lane, 2nd Floor, R/o. D.No.750, 9

Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Old Guntur, Guntur. . .. Accused.

OHDER

The complainant having requested permission to withdraw his complaint and having statisfied this court that there are sufficient grounds for granting permission is hereby permitted to withdraw the complaint. The accused is acquitted under Section 257, Code of

Criminal Procedure: are

: 18-03-2013.

1. Date of Offence

: 01-05-2013.

2. Date of complaint

: 18-05-2015.

3. Date of Hearing '

~ ___, 1q) 1 .r'

JUDL.MAGISTRATE~ I CLASS FOR RAILWAYS:: GUNTUR.